Because of the discussion about the Panther tank I thought it would be better to start another thread. I will not repeat everything, hoping the thread can get filled.
III/IV
http://www.whitewolfclan.net/worldoftanks/graphics/Panzer%20III%20IV.jpghttp://panzerivtheworkhorse.devhub.com/img/upload/img_5310.jpg
Panther
http://www.tamiyamodelbouw.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/56022-RC-German-Panther-Type-G-Full-Option-Kit.jpg

leccy

08-30-2011, 11:38 AM

I have always been intrigued by whether they could have done a sloped armour version on the Panzer IV, although the chassis had reached its weight limit it was still a pretty good reliable tank. Sloping the armour may have helped to reduce its weight for the same thickness. How it would have affected the ergonomics though I don't know. Probably would have been cheaper than the Panther but not as good a gun.

Similar thoughts really to a sloped armour version of the Cromwell or Comet.

steben

08-30-2011, 02:42 PM

Whether they could have done it is not a difficult question, if you can make Tiger II's or even a Maus :lol: you can make a sloped IV.
The problem is whether you take the risk of pulling resources into development.
In case of a IV, you would need two things: suspension issues and the power train.

- Suspension would lead I guess to a beefed up torsion bar system like the III. Interleaved solution would help, but it would make the total again less workable on the field. "Interleaving" has disappeared after WWII ... Making the step towards steel wheels as in late vehicles would be the better choice.

- Power train ... using the better III's transmission again as in late IV's and indeed using a bigger capacity engine.

And of course, the keen management to make a bridge from early IV production to new IV production.

The gun would not be the problem. The 75/L48 gun was more than good enough.
Few Allied tanks could survive 1 on 1 on this baby. The only reason for making + 100mm guns in WWII was the lack of tactical power.

One of the best features of the IV was its size and weight, which was in fact quite small (a feature all the behemoths did not have).

leccy

08-30-2011, 03:01 PM

Tactically a 'modernised' Panzer IV would have been better than the large Cats, most of the fighting in the West was close range ambush smaller more mobile and reliable vehicles would have been better. The Stugs and Hetzer were good in ambush but the lack of a traversable turret hampered their usefulness.
Not convinced the Jagdpanzer IV was worthwhile at all, just diverted production to a vehicle that had mobility problems and an overloaded front running gear.
Stug III and Panzer IV with Hetzers and Marders for back up along with the Beute's and converted old hulls as SPG's.

Mind you no matter what people say about German tank design being badly conceived and implemented with too many designs, they never built a monstrosity such as the Covenanter or suffered the delays and lack of direction Britain did with tank design and armament.

steben

08-30-2011, 03:41 PM

Tactically a 'modernised' Panzer IV would have been better than the large Cats, most of the fighting in the West was close range ambush smaller more mobile and reliable vehicles would have been better. The Stugs and Hetzer were good in ambush but the lack of a traversable turret hampered their usefulness.
Not convinced the Jagdpanzer IV was worthwhile at all, just diverted production to a vehicle that had mobility problems and an overloaded front running gear.
Stug III and Panzer IV with Hetzers and Marders for back up along with the Beute's and converted old hulls as SPG's.

Mind you no matter what people say about German tank design being badly conceived and implemented with too many designs, they never built a monstrosity such as the Covenanter or suffered the delays and lack of direction Britain did with tank design and armament.

:shock::shock::shock:
just looked for covenanter tank ... +1700 built almost without any leaving the Isle ... :lol:

The German conversions of obsolete tanks to mobile anti-tank guns were brilliant in their straightforward usefulness. No argument. Perhaps the StuG is the best design second to none of nazi german warfare.

leccy

08-30-2011, 04:05 PM

The Covenanter was a terrible waste of rust. Unfit for combat and not really fit for training as they were so unreliable. Units were issued them and they then had to be sent straight back to the manufacturer for modifications, get them back and away they would have to go again for more mods to try and get them to work.

Fast tank but a waste, contracts were made though so they had to build them, same with the Liberty engine originally for the Centaur, useless as a tank engine but they had to build them because of a contract.

Iron Yeoman

08-30-2011, 04:15 PM

I think the Germans would have been better off enhancing the Pz IV. The Panther is an excellent tank, however, I feel time wise it would have been quicker to improve upon the design of the Pz IV. Sloping armour and other such improvements mentioned by Leccy and Steben would have allowed it to compete with other Allied tanks such as the T-34 or Sherman Firefly whilst keeping some of it's advantages such as being smaller. I often feel German tank design lost it's way towards the end of the war with the designers believing that a few massive super tanks would win the war when in reality larger numbers of decent medium tanks would have helped them more (something the Russians showed with T-34s).

ubc

08-30-2011, 06:39 PM

Had the Germans stuck to the original prewar plan , and not allowed it to gather mass to meet new threats, the Panzer III replacement was the VK-20 design, which would have gone into mass production in early 1941. The original design was a 20 ton class Panzer III style design. This evolved by 1940/41 into the VK 24, which resembled a mini Panther hull [1 less set of roadwheels] and a Panzer III/IV turret, with enought turret ring to mount a Pak 40. Probably end up about 28 tons with 50mm face hardened glacis armor sloped at 55°. This tank would resemble Stebens design and gone into mass production in early 1942.

In theory it should have replaced the Panzer III , one for one on the production line.

steben

08-31-2011, 04:35 AM

VK2001
http://www.panzerschreck.de/03pzkpfw3/17vk2001.jpg

definitely going towards Panther.
On the other hand, no sloped armour nor assurance the interleaved suspension system would be more reliable.

I still would have favoured the III/IV system with six steel roadwheels on torsion bars, III transmission and at least 350-400hp engine with a total weight lower than 30 metric tons.
Speed at least better than Panther, let's say 45-50 km/h

In other words: keeping everything under specs of the T34. Lighter, smaller, but with a motherload of a gun.

Changing frontal armour of 80mm to 60mm @ 48 degrees (50cm / 45cm) gives equivalent of 90mm frontal @ 0 degrees but with increased ricochet effect
at the same weight (if reduction of original flat glacis of 15mm is taken in account)
Addition of frontal plate at the sides (if side armour is changed to sloped) gives +/- 300 kilograms extra.

Changing side armour from 35mm to 30mm @ 40 degrees (40 / 45cm) gives equivalent of 40mm with slight increased ricochet effect with same weight. If you take sloped front into account this lengthens the side plates with two triangles of about 0.5m x 0.45m = 0.225 sq m. This about 105 kilograms.

Total 405 kilograms extra.

Yet I would add straight internal side plates as there were straight plates in the original, @ 15mm and vertical plates of 10mm to close the space onder the side armour. This would give 2* 3.5 meters * 7800 kg * (0.45*0.01 + 0.4*0.015). = 570 kilograms extra. Tis "double armour" would protect against hollow charge and eliminate the need for "schürtzen" at the sides or at least above the wheels. Side skirts weigh around 250 kg - 300 kg.

Total extra weight around 0.75 - 1 ton ( 3 a 4 %).
Given that the engine would need to beefed up to around 350 - 400 hp (raise of 16 to 30%), it wouldn't be a problem and the engine choice would be almost directly influenced by top speed demands.

steben

08-31-2011, 06:55 AM

56505649565256535651

steben

08-31-2011, 09:07 AM

Man, I like this tank ... :mrgreen:

ubc

08-31-2011, 02:58 PM

What year is this supposed to go into production?

steben

09-01-2011, 02:39 AM

both simplified turret and the envisioned III/IV base were independent projects around early 1944, that were ought to be ready for further developement in 1944.
The "idea "of hybrid III/IV chassis was however much older.

both simplified turret and the envisioned III/IV base were independent projects around early 1944, that were ought to be ready for further developement in 1944.
The "idea "of hybrid III/IV chassis was however much older.

Steben how much older? can you draw on any sources?

steben

09-01-2011, 10:57 AM

Steben how much older? can you draw on any sources?

- VK2001 - BW 40
started in 39 - cancelled in 1940
had no sloped armour

- Design of IV woth sloped armour was ordered in december 1942, cancelled in early 1943.

- Nashorn / hornisse tank destroyer was based on IV with III power train. prohject started in early 1942 as "Geschützwagen III/IV" and entered production in early 1943 (somewhat same time as pz IV H)

I searched sites as "Achtung Panzer" and literature as the Osprey series.

It is my view that a III/IV was possible at the front in 1943 (perhaps Kursk), definitely if they would have seen "Panther" as a small run "heavy" tank side project.
It would have had a standard IV turret at the start, with a simplified one in 1944.

In fact, Jagdpanzer IV superstructure is a III/IV one but stretched a little higher (as can be seen in my photoshop of the Thun example)
It (actually the late version wtith 75L70 gun) was nose heavy because of the gun overhang, unchanged suspension and the 80mm armour.
Again, even the L48 Hunter with 60mm @ 50° was effective, the longer gun only an offspring of the exagerated gun race.

ubc

09-01-2011, 11:40 AM

I can see such a tank in mass production in mid 1943 along side Panther production especially if Tiger programme resources are rolled into an expanded Panther production.

BTW there was a reason sloped armor was not included in early tank designs. Spanish Civil war showed that when the FH sloped armor of the Panzer I was struck by over matching shells...[t/d less than 1] the FH shattered and offered less resistance. FH vertical armor offered more resistance until APCBC ammo became the norm , mid war.

Chevan

09-01-2011, 12:10 PM

I don't think the PzIV ( even modernized vertion like on pictures above) could even be compared with Panther. The speed wasn't actualy a matter. Germany lead the defence war since 1943. They needs exactly the such tank like Panther - with big frontal armour ,the wide tracks and powerful gun. I agree the Tigers was too expensive and , finally strategically useless. But Panther was a new-generation tank, masterpiece among medium class tanks of that period.It wasn't mass produced , at least in scale like the Sherman was, but i do beleive if Hitler refuged the Tigers project to a favour of Panther- germany could face advanced allies panzer armies with 10-15 thousands of Panthers.Enough to take war's initiative back.

steben

09-01-2011, 02:54 PM

I don't think the PzIV ( even modernized vertion like on pictures above) could even be compared with Panther. The speed wasn't actualy a matter. Germany lead the defence war since 1943. They needs exactly the such tank like Panther - with big frontal armour ,the wide tracks and powerful gun. I agree the Tigers was too expensive and , finally strategically useless. But Panther was a new-generation tank, masterpiece among medium class tanks of that period.It wasn't mass produced , at least in scale like the Sherman was, but i do beleive if Hitler refuged the Tigers project to a favour of Panther- germany could face advanced allies panzer armies with 10-15 thousands of Panthers.Enough to take war's initiative back.

there is no proof of the (modernized) Pz IV being less efficient design.
A war of defence often tends to favour hunters and assault guns, like the StuG, of which 7900 were built. The Panther's succes was ambush, front armour and walhallah gun. almost all present in the StuG and Jagdpanzer L70. Kill ratio's and StuG "aces" are stunning. Were Panthers had to lead an attack, a role specificaly for a tank, they were expensive canon meat. Pz IV were at least as effective in the Bocage/Normandy, where constant mobility into small places (requiring as few fuel as possible and etreme reliability) was precious.
And against air forces no tank is safe, better to lose a IV than a tough and costly built Panther

ubc

09-01-2011, 07:01 PM

Panther tank cost about 1.5 times the cost of the Panzer IV and 1/2 the cost of the Tiger tiger. If you increase Panther production numbers, its cost per unit will fall accordingly. Any new Panzer IV model may well initally cost as much as Panther, until production is in sufficent numbers to reduce fixed cost per unit.

The basic argument against the Panther would be tonnage argument. As rule a 40 ton tank requires twice as much maintenance resources as a 20 ton tank and a 60 ton tank is twice the 40 ton tank interms of logisitics. You can see one tangable aspect of this since the vehicle train to support a panther battalion is noticably larger than the same train for a Panzer IV battalion. Mind you I would be surprised if it raises the divisional vehicle park by more than 50 vehicles per battalion.

In terms of divisional tonnage its not going to change much , since you need to get fuel for 4000 wheels and another 200+ tracks and 400 1/2 tracks anyway.

I would add the following comment. Any change directed to happen from 1943 on is pretty much too little too late. Any meaningfull change has to occur in 1940-42 period to radically alter the outcome of the war.

How much older is the concept of the "hybrid III/IV chassis"?

steben

09-02-2011, 02:25 AM

Panther tank cost about 1.5 times the cost of the Panzer IV and 1/2 the cost of the Tiger tiger. If you increase Panther production numbers, its cost per unit will fall accordingly. Any new Panzer IV model may well initally cost as much as Panther, until production is in sufficent numbers to reduce fixed cost per unit.

The basic argument against the Panther would be tonnage argument. As rule a 40 ton tank requires twice as much maintenance resources as a 20 ton tank and a 60 ton tank is twice the 40 ton tank interms of logisitics. You can see one tangable aspect of this since the vehicle train to support a panther battalion is noticably larger than the same train for a Panzer IV battalion. Mind you I would be surprised if it raises the divisional vehicle park by more than 50 vehicles per battalion.

In terms of divisional tonnage its not going to change much , since you need to get fuel for 4000 wheels and another 200+ tracks and 400 1/2 tracks anyway.

I would add the following comment. Any change directed to happen from 1943 on is pretty much too little too late. Any meaningfull change has to occur in 1940-42 period to radically alter the outcome of the war.

How much older is the concept of the "hybrid III/IV chassis"?

The one depicted here is not older than 1943-44. But neither is the Panther ;).
There is however a big difference between a new Panther and a modified Pz IV. Many parts were already in production , ammunition remained the same, etc....
And don't forget there was a Jagdpanzer IV produced from 44-45. This had many similarities with III/IV superstructure. Main flaws of the Jagdpz IV were inherent to the utilizing the L70 long gun and it's low ground clearance.

IV's were very easy transported by trains, smaller and lighter.
(on the other hand, 38t's and II's were frequently transported by truck :) )

Iron Yeoman

09-02-2011, 02:55 AM

IV's were very easy transported by trains, smaller and lighter.
(on the other hand, 38t's and II's were frequently transported by truck :) )

I think that's quite an important point. The bigger the tank the more fuel it eats and more logistical support and maintenance required. This is where an upgraded Pz IV would have an advantage over the Panther, smaller tank = less support (well hopefully, but you never know).

steben

09-02-2011, 03:10 AM

I think that's quite an important point. The bigger the tank the more fuel it eats and more logistical support and maintenance required. This is where an upgraded Pz IV would have an advantage over the Panther, smaller tank = less support (well hopefully, but you never know).

The IV would

- get less bogged,
- far less break down between effective battle
(and for both: if so, towing would be easier)

- be less prone to unexperienced drivers (that weren't used to the barrel length and mass of Panthers and King Tigers)
- would easily get maintenance by it's own crew
- require less support,
- transported in larger numbers
- consume less fuel
- be far less missed if knocked out
- be a better vehicle for reconnaissance mission.

- fit with steel roadwheels and other late war technology it would be cheaper and produced quicker than a Panther

Along with this, it would have been possible to stop Tiger production, never come up with the King Tiger and produce reliable small run of Panthers (equivalent of Tiger production but at 50% of resources)
This would come with thicker side armour on turret and superstructure (+/-60-70mm), settling for a slower tank (40km/h instead of 45) = King Tiger light. The reduction of armour on the actual Panther was chosen to achieve higher mobility and speed.
Yet the "speed" of the Panther was a bit overrated. Yes, quite good, but on the other hand to slow for a medium/recon tank (still 10km/h slower than the "old" T34), and on the other hand a bit useless if used as heavy support tank, giving a heavy but still underarmoured vehicle.
Don't forget that both Panther and King Tiger never fully used their potential, because of breakdowns, fuel shortage, green drafted crews, ... resulting in a far worse balance than forseen when rejecting other projects, reducing the side armour etc etc

Possible engine would have been the one intended for the VK1602 Leopard project
Maybach HL 157 = 15 700 cc rated 550hp / 3500 rpm
This would have to been trimmed down to max 2600 rpm, looking at history and the resulting effect on reliability. giving at cruisespeed +/- 410 hp @ 2600 rpm.
resulting in +/- 14.5 a 15 hp / ton. Slightly more than a Panther.

there is no proof of the (modernized) Pz IV being less efficient design.

SO there is no proves that seriously modified PziV (in terms of armor and gun up to level of Panther) will be less expensive then the Panther was.
Endeed the Kittys was realized by itself the NEW ideology for tank in ww2 - first of all the wide tracks, that let them not to sink in the mud. Second, the powerfull gun. In fact all those qualities were introduced by Germans after analisys of the battles on Eastern front. If you improve the PzIV to the Panther abilities- you will have got the another Panther;)

A war of defence often tends to favour hunters and assault guns, like the StuG, of which 7900 were built. The Panther's succes was ambush, front armour and walhallah gun. almost all present in the StuG and Jagdpanzer L70. Kill ratio's and StuG "aces" are stunning. Were Panthers had to lead an attack, a role specificaly for a tank, they were expensive canon meat. Pz IV were at least as effective in the Bocage/Normandy, where constant mobility into small places (requiring as few fuel as possible and etreme reliability) was precious.

Well , it's not actually a secret that the allies entire 1944 has no real means to hunt the German's heavy tanks. Neither they had a serious tank's armies on Europe. They had nothing till the Pershing and Centurion , that came up too late to war. As for the Eastern front- the PzIV even with 75mm gun was no match for the T-34/85 ( which was still more speedy) and monstrous 122mm gun of Is-2.The mobility can't compensate the rised helpless. If you need the universal tank like Sherman or T-34 then PzIV again had to weak gun for this role.

Chevan

09-02-2011, 06:17 AM

The basic argument against the Panther would be tonnage argument. As rule a 40 ton tank requires twice as much maintenance resources as a 20 ton tank and a 60 ton tank is twice the 40 ton tank interms of logisitics. You can see one tangable aspect of this since the vehicle train to support a panther battalion is noticably larger than the same train for a Panzer IV battalion. Mind you I would be surprised if it raises the divisional vehicle park by more than 50 vehicles per battalion.
the more tonnage is the more abilities and adventages endeed.
Which is the logistic to built the 60-tonns Abrams with powerfull gun as the basic tank of US army,If they may to develop succesfull 30 or 40 -tonns project instead?
the everything is about gun and armor. The 48-tonns Panther with 100 mm frontal armor was almost unbreakable for the all types of allied guns in 1943 from a distance 1000 meters. The unique quality for that period.

steben

09-02-2011, 06:19 AM

SO there is no proves that seriously modified PziV (in terms of armor and gun up to level of Panther) will be less expensive then the Panther was.
Endeed the Kittys was realized by itself the NEW ideology for tank in ww2 - first of all the wide tracks, that let them not to sink in the mud. Second, the powerfull gun. In fact all those qualities were introduced by Germans after analisys of the battles on Eastern front. If you improve the PzIV to the Panther abilities- you will have got the another Panther;)

Weight, tracks, gun , ... all symptoms of exageration.
The point of a "modernized IV" is exactly going to a point where all the negative sides of monstertanks are compensated. It's not about achieving Panther abilities, it's about whether the gained abilities of the Panther are enough to compensate for the acquired troubles.
Sloped armour is nothing, if the sides are weak. A heavy tank is useless, if it needs to be medium. Many of the Panther features were spoiled by situation. Where the IV fought at its best.

This means: upgunning to Kwk 40 as main gun was enough, the size was enough. The soviet monsters were on itself an answer to the big German "Cats". And all theories about reliability and mobility vs monster tanks are valid against the IS-2 as well.

Well , it's not actually a secret that the allies entire 1944 has no real means to hunt the German's heavy tanks. Neither they had a serious tank's armies on Europe. They
had nothing till the Pershing and Centurion , that came up too late to war.

Well, they didn't need it, it seems ... did they? :)

As for the Eastern front- the PzIV even with 75mm gun was no match for the T-34/85 ( which was still more speedy) and monstrous 122mm gun of Is-2.The mobility can't compensate the rised helpless. If you need the universal tank like Sherman or T-34 then PzIV again had to weak gun for this role.

Many claim the IV with 75 long gun was in fact a match for the T-34/85. In other words: the 34/85 was still not ahead. Armour still was vulnerable and the 85 didn't perform better than the 75. Especially if the Soviets were the attacker. German sight system was better, 5-man crews were better, 85 and 122 gun were less powerful than German guns with the same caliber, mostly because of ammunition engineering.

Not for the crewmans;)
I remember the memours one German tanker driver who fought in Kurs battle with newest Tiger. He recall that the tank was hited ...8 times , but stay undamaged and able move and fight. And crew was lucky.Considering the fact that the basic soviet AA-artillery was 76-mm gun - very enough to finish any PzIII/IV from 1-2 hits.

This means: upgunning to Kwk 40 as main gun was enough, the size was enough. The soviet monsters were on itself an answer to the big German "Cats". And all theories about reliability and mobility vs monster tanks are valid against the IS-2 as well.

You are mixing up the events a bit. Endeed the first monsters the Germans ever faced in WW2 was soviet Kv-1/2 in 1941. they got certain troubles also with hunting the T-34/76 in the early period of war. The entire Panther project was began as the GErman answer to "T-34" and initially the germans was going to make an "copy" for themself. But the Panther was just the improved the German vertion that , nevertheless had many common points to T-34.

Many claim the IV with 75 long gun was in fact a match for the T-34/85. In other words: the 34/85 was still not ahead. Armour still was vulnerable and the 85 didn't perform better than the 75. Especially if the Soviets were the attacker. German sight system was better, 5-man crews were better, 85 and 122 gun were less powerful than German guns with the same caliber, mostly because of ammunition engineering.
The IV with 75 mm gun was match to T-34 ONLY in tank-tank duel. Having good velocity gun and better optic it often won. But as infantry support tank ( especially in attack) compared to T-34 it was OBSOLET. It wasn't effective exaclty in attack.It losed to more heavy but speedy T-34.Plus the 85 mm gun still had more shrapnel effect.

steben

09-02-2011, 07:25 AM

Not for the crewmans;)
I remember the memours one German tanker driver who fought in Kurs battle with newest Tiger. He recall that the tank was hited ...8 times , but stay undamaged and able move and fight. And crew was lucky.Considering the fact that the basic soviet AA-artillery was 76-mm gun - very enough to finish any PzIII/IV from 1-2 hits.

True, but the same Tigers wre knocked out in Tunis by 6 pdr's.
Tactics are more important. No tank design could make the Kursk battle a win for the Germans.
And the modernized III/IV would certainly be less vulnerable.

You are mixing up the events a bit. Endeed the first monsters the Germans ever faced in WW2 was soviet Kv-1/2 in 1941. they got certain troubles also with hunting the T-34/76 in the early period of war. The entire Panther project was began as the GErman answer to "T-34" and initially the germans was going to make an "copy" for themself. But the Panther was just the improved the German vertion that , nevertheless had many common points to T-34.

It was precisely the 75/48 gun that brought the answer in knocking out the T34. By the way a 34/76 has in rough lines the same armour as a 34/85.

The best tactics in facing the KV's were ... run away run around and leave it be.

The IV with 75 mm gun was match to T-34 ONLY in tank-tank duel. Having good velocity gun and better optic it often won. But as infantry support tank ( especially in attack) compared to T-34 it was OBSOLET. It wasn't effective exaclty in attack.It losed to more heavy but speedy T-34.Plus the 85 mm gun still had more shrapnel effect.

Of course battles are won by other means than simple tank vs tank. ;)
Pure tank vs tank battles you say tend to give benefits to the German 75 gun, in other attacks, there is no assumption of a massive tank fleet.
Or you attack on open field mostly vs tanks, or you go in urban region, were tanks often are fragile.
A III/IV would have answers as in
1) higher production
2) better protection

Waffentrager production was to be inplace of the Zug 3/4 tractor production, so it would not factor in percentage of output unless you were including tractor production.

I still need to know when was the earliest Panzer III/IV hybrid proposed?

83Footer

09-02-2011, 04:32 PM

Very interesting. :) That III/IV looks like a German T-34. What would have been most useful would be machine with the good features of the T-34,( wide tracks, sloped armor, diesel engine in light weight) and the long German 75 produced in large numbers. Say a Panzer Mark Four and a Half instead of a Panther.
The Panther was supposed to be an improvement over the T-35, but they got carried away with the improving. So they ended up with a machine with double the weight and I suspect 8 times the cost of the T-34.

steben

09-03-2011, 04:16 AM

Very interesting. :) That III/IV looks like a German T-34. What would have been most useful would be machine with the good features of the T-34,( wide tracks, sloped armor, diesel engine in light weight) and the long German 75 produced in large numbers. Say a Panzer Mark Four and a Half instead of a Panther.
The Panther was supposed to be an improvement over the T-35, but they got carried away with the improving. So they ended up with a machine with double the weight and I suspect 8 times the cost of the T-34.

mass production of the Panther made up for the initial cost, but it wasn't until early 1944 that the Panther was a mass product with at least a minimum in reliability.
Flaws in armor and suspicious labour quality however tackled the tank, much more than the IV production.
Flaw-Panther costed not tthat much more than a IV.

On the other hand, a IV "B" (III/IV) would have costed less than an old IV.

The Panther would have made a very good heavy tank, better than the expensive and even more heavy Tiger, if more armour would have been allowed and a more allround gun would have been attached.

I see Hitler's influence - as in everything - as a block on evolution.
One must understand that even before the blitzkrieg choices had to be made, no perfect development could be reached, given the timeline. However, right choices were made and there were no hundreds of projects being produced.
The most striking is the adoption of the Czech tanks and the Czech manufacturing plants, without bothering about German superiority philosophy. Taking over the Czech capacity was far superior than any equivalent.

ubc

09-03-2011, 01:22 PM

I do agree that Hitlers micromeddling crippled the German war effort from the moment he took power. He had no respect for the General Staff and their strategic vision. He refused the concept of the 'Wehrmacht command' that would have avoided unnessesary duplication and he dismissed the attempts to transition armaments production to massed production.

Hitler scuttled the multi phase expansion programme already in place, for his 4 year plan in 1936. This seriously screwed up the German growth making the army build more horse infantry divisions based on a 'limited war economy', instead of transforming the exsiting stucture into a moderatly sized motorised-mechanised juggernaught backed up by a 'total war economy'. Likewise the airforce was denyied the multi engined strategic bomber it badly needed in place for more and more medium bombers demanded by Hitler. Even the navy lost out; being forced to build a moderately sized 'anti French' fleet instead of going for a larger 'anti British fleet'.

Remove Hitler from the equation and everything can change for Germany.

With reference to the thread; I think the best strategy for Germany if it fails to secure a European empire by mid war; would be to adopt a defensive posture and utilize a 'high low mix' approach in the armed forces and transforme the force with the array of 'special weapons' developed prewar.

For my purposes this meant a Panther production in place of all other heavy weapons programmes, included small run specialized models . These would be concentrated in Panzer korps along with SPW and enough SPHow production to match. The rest of the considerable AFV production would be devoted into convert all obsolote and captured tanks into Marder type improvizations and improvised Munitions AFV and Armroed recovery AFVs as well as Flak vehicles. Mean while the rest of the AFV production would be transformed into massive production of Marder/Hetzer/waffentragger.

A larger production run of modified Panzer IV could work in place of the Panther/Tiger production etc since the enemy threats , like the 17lb/76/90 gun and the Stalin tanks were all reactions to the Tiger and Panther in the first place. Remove them from the historical record and there is no need for the allies to develope any responce in the first place.

steben

09-04-2011, 01:35 PM

In a way, you describe 90% what happened, with the exception of the Panther vs Tiger and small run spec.....
Of course along with Hitler's unsound disruptive decisions, the Germans did what they could nevertheless where they could escpae from the tiran's hand.
One of the biggest problem was the far to late implementation of war economy, along with to big reliance on slave labour. Re-armamant growth was cut after fall gelb/rot. A completely useless decision, unless an easier armistice with the UK was aimed for.

steben

09-04-2011, 01:52 PM

Aha, found something

Nope, this is not the case.

Tanks before Panther got eee... internal skeleton and armor plates were welded to this skeleton, where the panther didn't have that skeleton and armor was welded to... another armor plate. I hope this is clear what I'm saying.

explains cheaper production.

ubc

09-04-2011, 03:03 PM

http://www.panzerbaer.de/models/35_ncm_pzkfw_iv_w1466-a.htm

OK lets get some form of a translation happening here.

LLK) - on the basis a design drawing (W 1466) of Krupp from January 1943 a project engineering advancement tank combat car of the IV with bent armour-plates became admits. This version should be considered officially as execution H. The modernization would have led tanks in connection with winter chains to an increase of the total weight of the IV on over three tons. In consequence its stood a substantial load of the drive assembly and the steering gear to expect, particularly since of them was exceeded originally computed load already at the latest. Although improvements for the driver view had to be obtained and the nose mg would have received a new ball screen, the tank commission decided Panther because of the expected worse handling characteristics as well as a therefore higher fuel consumption in favor of the traditional shaping and the started production of the PzKpfw V „“and did thus without a conversion of this proposal.

Krupp, meal, made a design (AKF 31941) of a simplified tower for the tank IV, having six edges, to July 1944 again. It pointed a simplified cannon screen, but neither to Seh & Mg flaps still another commander's cupola up. Instead two hatchways in the tower roof and evenly such two-door hatch at the left tower side were intended. The commander would have kept his place at the left side in all other respects further in the tower the KwK placed. In the course of the introduction of the tank hunter IV with the 7,5cm KwK L/70 this tower construction was likewise rejected.

New Connection Models already offers both upper tub the having diagonal armour-plates and the simplified tower since longer as separate conversion kits on basis of the Tamiya to tank IV kits.

If a not realized project is to thus develop, why no combination. Thus here a fiction developed on basis of the standard tank of the armed forces. As basis kit served the PzKpfw IV, Ausf. H, early version, of Tamiya (No.35209). In the selection of the drive assembly parts, additional armor, the exhaust for the tower swiveling work one should to standard and/or early execution the H tanks of the IV adhere. New drive wheels and poured idlers are of it exceptional. When any Zurüstteile, entrenching tool, jacking equipment, chunk, steel cables etc. is missing to project the 7,5cm KwK 40 L/48 inside the simplified tower continues to sit there, the visible pipe length between muzzle brake and front tubing coat/cannon screen at the model amounts to only 46.5 mm on the basis the publication „Begleitwagen tank combat car IV “- New edition volume of 5 from the series military vehicles, engine book publishing house of walter J. Spielberger.

Historically the Hetzer programme began in spring of 1943 on demand from Guderian and was designed and in mass production within a year on a chassie that was 1/2 meter wider than the Pz 38t that it was based on. Essentially this is a complete redesign of the chassie.Almost an entirely new AFV. So I would suggest with the same kind of political will, such a tank design [W 1466] could enter mass production by the end of 1943, because the bulk of the chassie remains unchanged and thats the main production effort.

You see a similar thing happening about the same time in the UBoat wars where timing was everything. The Type VII & IX were to be phased out from 1945 on with the ElectroBoat Type XXI.

The old models were evolutionary developments of WW-I unterseeboots, which meant there underwater speed/endurance was about 1% of the surface speed/endurance They relied on operating moslty on the surface. By mid war reality had set in and the 'prewar games' turned out to be accurate....that given enough time the allies would develope sufficent ASW assets to drive the UBoat underwater and neutralize there offensive capability. Which is why the balanced fleet was pushed. However Hitler reversed this and went all UBoats instead. Given the time it takes to convert an industry it was only getting going when the allies ASW effort took over.

The problem is that the long term planning was in the "Walter Peroxide Submarines" with 10 times the underwater endurance of Uboats and ultimatly would have endurance of 2/3 of the surface endurance through the Schnorkel. But this new technology was too difficult to impilment with a back drop of so many other special new tech being developed. So the mass production slipped from 1943 to 1944 and only when the design changed from Peroxide turbines to very high powered electric generators that offered at most 1/4 of the ability the peroxide boats offered.

At about the same time this whole process was underway 1943/44 , a similar proposal was put forward to modified the 400-500 existing Uboats to exploit the various ideas and technology developed. While this could have been adopted into operational boats immediately instead of waiting until 1945, it was rejected since it would delay the type XXI/XXIII submarines to long [undefined].

The fact is that when Donitz withdrew the Uboats in late 1943 and retasked them to coastal efforts the following year, they effectively conceeded "The Battle of the Atlantic". The solution was needed in 1943 not 1945. Had Donitz been left to push Walters peroxide boats they could have been operational by late 1943/44 while the improvisations could have been applied to the ongoing UBoat fleet development from mid 1942 on, allowing them to keep pace of the ASW threats.

83Footer

09-04-2011, 04:33 PM

The Wehrmacht paid the T-34 the greatest praise by asking German industry to copy it. I wonder how a panther turret fitted on a T-34 body would have worked.

Nickdfresh

09-04-2011, 08:16 PM

I do agree that Hitlers micromeddling crippled the German war effort from the moment he took power.

Really? Specifically how? Do tell...

He had no respect for the General Staff and their strategic vision. He refused the concept of the 'Wehrmacht command' that would have avoided unnessesary duplication and he dismissed the attempts to transition armaments production to massed production.

A blinding half-truth and a basic regurgitating of conventional wisdom mythologies prior to the 1970s. The "strategic vision" of the General Staff would never have allowed "Sichelschnitt" and Fall Gelb would have been a disadvantageous battle of attrition. Hitler may have disrespected the General Staff, but he also allowed those with talent to supplant the reactionaries, before being seduced and destroyed by the arrogance resulting from his initial successes...

Hitler scuttled the multi phase expansion programme already in place, for his 4 year plan in 1936. This seriously screwed up the German growth making the army build more horse infantry divisions based on a 'limited war economy', instead of transforming the exsiting stucture into a moderatly sized motorised-mechanised juggernaught backed up by a 'total war economy'. Likewise the airforce was denyied the multi engined strategic bomber it badly needed in place for more and more medium bombers demanded by Hitler. Even the navy lost out; being forced to build a moderately sized 'anti French' fleet instead of going for a larger 'anti British fleet'.

Complete dis-informative fantasy! Really? You think Hitler somehow intentionally handicapped the capacity of German industry? They Four Year Plan was little more than a slight undermining of the terms of the Versaille Treaty. And Germany had a plan for a strategic air force, but was limited to medium twin-engined bombers due the limited capacity of German industry.

The Kriegsmarine was never anticipating a show down with the Royal Navy and before 1948. As stated in Tooze, it was in fact Hitler's ultra-aggressive foreign policy decisions that led to war far earlier than anticipated by his armed forces.

Remove Hitler from the equation and everything can change for Germany.

Then Germany wouldn't have defeated France in six weeks. You can't just re-fight WWII removing Hitler for the equation in some bizarre, hindsight adulation of the Wehrmacht...

With reference to the thread; I think the best strategy for Germany if it fails to secure a European empire by mid war; would be to adopt a defensive posture and utilize a 'high low mix' approach in the armed forces and transforme the force with the array of 'special weapons' developed prewar.

Um, isn't that what Germany pretty much did?

steben

09-05-2011, 03:03 AM

The "strategic vision" of the General Staff would never have allowed "Sichelschnitt" and Fall Gelb would have been a disadvantageous battle of attrition. Hitler may have disrespected the General Staff, but he also allowed those with talent to supplant the reactionaries, before being seduced and destroyed by the arrogance resulting from his initial successes...

Correct, ... but exactly the way you describe it, Hitler never fully followed Guderian's or Manstein's striking ideas at some crucial points.
Remember Dunkirke ... tactical / strategical withdrawals ...

You think Hitler somehow intentionally handicapped the capacity of German industry?

No
But he was a at a certain point a self-confident poser, inflicting strategical injuries.

Then Germany wouldn't have defeated France in six weeks. You can't just re-fight WWII removing Hitler for the equation in some bizarre, hindsight adulation of the Wehrmacht...

agreed

Um, isn't that what Germany pretty much did?

90% ;)

steben

09-05-2011, 05:37 AM

The Wehrmacht paid the T-34 the greatest praise by asking German industry to copy it. I wonder how a panther turret fitted on a T-34 body would have worked.

They might have asked just that, yes, but it was a psychological schock, not just logical thinking.
Where the T34 gave trouble, the KV was a real nightmare... "Iron roadblock" it was called.
A T-34 could be knocked out by pzIII and IV, at closer range... a KV not and this tank had no sloped armour. It was simply thick thicker thickest. So far the "slope religion"...

The KV didn't go unnoticed: PzKpfw 756(r) German adaptation of the KV-1 with high velocity 75mm gun.
http://www.hobbyboss.com/uploads/allimg/101127/5-10112G50312104.jpg
And suddenly the Germans had a real heavy tank !!! :)

The most feared feature about both, however, was the gun.

Just as exagerated remarks are made as "why didn't the Germans win then? when talking about pazner design, one can ask "why the Russians didn't waste the Germans early in 1942-1943?" because of mass amounts of already modified T-34's.
The answers is simple: the T-34 was cannon fodder. The armour of the first T34 was no more than the side armour of a Panther. Most armour upgrades were made to the turret only. German AP ammunition already was designed with ballistic and soft cap, reducing the effect of ricochet.

Nick, Nick, Nick read some thing other than western Histories....please.

When you do you will see that history is in the eyes of the beholder, or is dependant on your POV.

If you actually read German histories you would know that Hitler fully expected the any invasion of France to end up just occupying Beligum Lux & Netherlands and then spend years battleing the French."Sichelschnitt" was Manstein's plan and only was adopted when enough time elapsed in delays to allow its implimentation. More to the point Hitler kept his general staff in the dark as to his real purpose convincing them that the main war with the big powers was going to be much later. Hitler convinced him self and his loyal leadership that actions in Eastern Europe were designed to accelerate the final phase of the expansion of the Wehrmacht before the major war occurred, since he was unwilling to wait the amount of time Hjalmar Schacht indicated it would take by peacefull means. No one was more surprised than he was when a European war exploded , when he invaded Poland.

Oh and sorry Tooze doesn't count as a German historian. His POV is very English! Although his prewar material is helpful if not occasionally misguided, his war history is suitably twisted and flawed. He does makes an important point in one of his published papers that most history is based on oppinion and not fact, but then proceeds to fall into his own trap.

Every generation there is a new spokesman for each side of the on going debate about German history in and leading up to WW-II. As I said before you need to learn respect for the Historical process.

Nickdfresh

09-05-2011, 01:49 PM

Correct, ... but exactly the way you describe it, Hitler never fully followed Guderian's or Manstein's striking ideas at some crucial points.
Remember Dunkirke ... tactical / strategical withdrawals ...

Two things:

Firstly: One must remember that Gen. Halder (who violently hated Hitler) had at least as much to do with successful implementation, and more importantly the conduct, of the plan--as the plan unfolded much faster than anyone believed possible and the German strategic penetration of France was more complete than thought possible. Furthermore, Fall Gelb (Case Yellow) was NOT a prime example of what was known as "Blitzkrieg", but was an accidental unfolding of the strategy on the fly as the Heer's rapid advance forced new logistical measures to be brought about...

Secondly, the Dunkirk "Halt!" order technically did not originate with Hitler, he merely concurred with his more skittish generals that something may have been afoot in the Allied camp, and the initially successful British attacks at Arras contributed to this fright. Secondly, there was no given that the panzers--devoid of infantry and storming a place not known as good tank country, and then engaging in urban fighting--would have necessarily wiped out the pocket. There was no guarantee of victory with the exhausted state of the Heer panzer crews and their breaking down tanks..

No
But he was a at a certain point a self-confident poser, inflicting strategical injuries.

agreed...

We do on this. Hitler certainly drove his country into war far in advance than the projected time tables the military had for rearmament...

Nickdfresh

09-05-2011, 02:05 PM

Nick, Nick, Nick read some thing other than western Histories....please.

When you do you will see that history is in the eyes of the beholder, or is dependant on your POV.

Contentions of History has to be backed up with some chronological factual basis of documentation and support; not pulled out of our arseholes!

If you actually read German histories

Um, reread this post again!

...you would know that Hitler fully expected the any invasion of France to end up just occupying Beligum Lux & Netherlands and then spend years battleing the French.

Hitler wanted to invade as soon as possible in October of 1939, which would have been suicidal. However, the initial draft of Fall Gelb was Gen. Halder's, not Hitler's. Once Adolf was successfully bulwarked from attacking until spring, he is the one that pulled Manstein from near obscurity, then allowed Halder to make a stunning transformation from military reactionary to progressive and raise Manstein's plan to fruition...

"Sichelschnitt" was Manstein's plan and only was adopted when enough time elapsed in delays to allow its implimentation.

Agreed. But Sichelschnitt is analogous to being Manstein's baby that was adopted by Halder and raised to manhood...

More to the point Hitler kept his general staff in the dark as to his real purpose convincing them that the main war with the big powers was going to be much later. Hitler convinced him self and his loyal leadership that actions in Eastern Europe were designed to accelerate the final phase of the expansion of the Wehrmacht before the major war occurred, since he was unwilling to wait the amount of time Hjalmar Schacht indicated it would take by peacefull means. No one was more surprised than he was when a European war exploded , when he invaded Poland.

Hitler had no real road map to war, he more or less blundered into it with miscalculations and an ultra-aggressive foreign policy. The start of WWII wasn't the result of any staged, rational planning. But it also has to be stated that both Tooze and Frieser remark that there were SOME logical reasons for Hitler's seemingly Mad Hatter actions, such as Operation Barbarossa being largely a reaction to the sheer industrial might of the United States...

....

Every generation there is a new spokesman for each side of the on going debate about German history in and leading up to WW-II. As I said before you need to learn respect for the Historical process.

I respect scholarship and documentations. May I ask if you are of German lineage living in Canada?

leccy

09-05-2011, 05:00 PM

Chevan
You are mixing up the events a bit. Endeed the first monsters the Germans ever faced in WW2 was soviet Kv-1/2 in 1941. they got certain troubles also with hunting the T-34/76 in the early period of war. The entire Panther project was began as the GErman answer to "T-34" and initially the germans was going to make an "copy" for themself. But the Panther was just the improved the German vertion that , nevertheless had many common points to T-34.

The first Armoured 'Monsters' the Germans faced were the French Char B1/B1 bis and Matilda in 1940. Only the 88mm Flak could deal with either of them.

steben

09-06-2011, 03:21 AM

The first Armoured 'Monsters' the Germans faced were the French Char B1/B1 bis and Matilda in 1940. Only the 88mm Flak could deal with either of them.

.... which eventually led to hurry the 88 onto the Henschel Tiger tank, which was designed to be equiped with the 75/L70 gun. ;)

A quick note: the Matilda was far much more a threath than the B1. Command and crew of UK matilda forces were superior and the war against the French ended way to soon to be a big trouble.

steben

09-06-2011, 03:54 AM

research on two-stroke diesels would have been a leap as well...., yielding higher power even at lower capacity engines than petrol
Something the British already had in stock

Chevan

09-06-2011, 07:34 AM

The first Armoured 'Monsters' the Germans faced were the French Char B1/B1 bis and Matilda in 1940. Only the 88mm Flak could deal with either of them.
25-tonns Matilda was even more light then the early T-34. Yes it was well armored but..40-mm gun;)Not to mention two weak 95 h.p. diesels. That lets it move with fantastic 10km/h ;)Matilda remainds me the soviet idiocy - T-35 tank.
Hardly it has impressed the GErmans..

steben

09-06-2011, 08:22 AM

25-tonns Matilda was even more light then the early T-34. Yes it was well armored but..40-mm gun;)Not to mention two weak 95 h.p. diesels. That lets it move with fantastic 10km/h ;)Matilda remainds me the soviet idiocy - T-35 tank.
Hardly it has impressed the GErmans..

Try to look in perspective ... we're talking about the very beginning of the war. Of course the Matilda is weak when talking about Russian monsters. But even a IS-2 is weak next to a Leopard 2A6 ... :neutral:
The 37mm and even 50mm guns had a hard time with the Matilda, which gun could easily knock out the panzers.

Chevan

09-06-2011, 08:47 AM

Try to look in perspective ... we're talking about the very beginning of the war. Of course the Matilda is weak when talking about Russian monsters. But even a IS-2 is weak next to a Leopard 2A6 ... :neutral:

but russian monsters was developed and produced almost within the same period the Matilda was. The t-34 since 1940.Matilda was rather obsolet even for its time.

The 37mm and even 50mm guns had a hard time with the Matilda, which gun could easily knock out the panzers.
It can work only in african desert far open terrains. Where slow-moved Matilda has a chance to hit a somebody. In Eropean forest terrains this tank has no any real chances.That's why germans panzers had not noticed or reported the battlles with Matilda - it never was a problem for them.

steben

09-06-2011, 08:58 AM

but russian monsters was developed and produced almost within the same period the Matilda was. The t-34 since 1940.Matilda was rather obsolet even for its time.

It can work only in african desert far open terrains. Where slow-moved Matilda has a chance to hit a somebody. In Eropean forest terrains this tank has no any real chances.That's why germans panzers had not noticed or reported the battlles with Matilda - it never was a problem for them.

Why wouldn't the matilda be elsewhere a problem just because of forests in Europe? :lol:

leccy

09-06-2011, 10:24 AM

Chevan

The Matilda II was a problem for the German forces in 1940, they encountered them in a very small number in one major battle at Arras. They found that no weapon could stop them until in desperation they turned the 88mm onto them after the British had run riot along with the Matilda I. At the time the 2pdr was one of the most effective AT weapons that could destroy any German armoured vehicle (although it had a crap HE shell which was not issued).
It was part of the reason the Panzers stopped before Dunkirk.

The CharB1 bis was also a tank that was very effective against the German forces there use was terrible though, split up in penny packets instead of being concentrated. They were impervious to German AT weapons in 1940.

Part of the reason for the development of the Tiger I was due to encountering these tanks which they captured and could examine in detail for ways to knock them out. By the time the Germans encountered the Matilda II again in the western desert they had developed the 50mm towed AT and tank guns which could at least take on the Matilda which had 80mm frontal armour, 65mm side armour and 75mm turret armour. The main weapon to defeat the Matilda II though was still the 88mm in ambush.

Top speed of the Matilda was 16mph though (26kmh), which was its designed speed. It was built as an Infantry support tank and not as an anti-tank vehicle. Later models were fitted with a 6 pdr but it was too late for the old girls by then.

steben

09-06-2011, 10:35 AM

the Matilda which had 80mm frontal armour, 65mm side armour and 75mm turret armour.

It IS already 80% of the "monumental Tiger" 's armour ... :shock:

Later models were fitted with a 6 pdr but it was too late for the old girls by then.

which was an excellent gun actually

Chevan

09-06-2011, 01:16 PM

Chevan

The Matilda II was a problem for the German forces in 1940, they encountered them in a very small number in one major battle at Arras. They found that no weapon could stop them until in desperation they turned the 88mm onto them after the British had run riot along with the Matilda I. At the time the 2pdr was one of the most effective AT weapons that could destroy any German armoured vehicle (although it had a crap HE shell which was not issued).
It was part of the reason the Panzers stopped before Dunkirk.
The CharB1 bis was also a tank that was very effective against the German forces there use was terrible though, split up in penny packets instead of being concentrated. They were impervious to German AT weapons in 1940.

Well , i can agree here.

Part of the reason for the development of the Tiger I was due to encountering these tanks which they captured and could examine in detail for ways to knock them out. By the time the Germans encountered the Matilda II again in the western desert they had developed the 50mm towed AT and tank guns which could at least take on the Matilda which had 80mm frontal armour, 65mm side armour and 75mm turret armour. The main weapon to defeat the Matilda II though was still the 88mm in ambush.

Hmmn, sound stronger then armour of KV-1;)
However it had neither KV powerful engine nor even adequate gun. I do believe the 88 was the only siutable gun to hit matilda armour. Just in case itself didn't stuck in the mud ;)

Top speed of the Matilda was 16mph though (26kmh), which was its designed speed. It was built as an Infantry support tank and not as an anti-tank vehicle. Later models were fitted with a 6 pdr but it was too late for the old girls by then.
I believe the 26 km/h is the topest speed , moving from the slope;) Even Wiki get the average speed in desert no more then 6 Mph;) Probably it was more then enough for British army( which never moved faster in ww2;)) But it would be laughable for the dynamic tanks battles of Eastern front.Even KingTiger moved faster.
P.S. Just don't think dear frieds , i want to hurt the british pride .The Centurion tank was IMO the best on its class. But eveything they done BEFORE Centurion - it would be better never to do.

Chevan

09-06-2011, 01:26 PM

Why wouldn't the matilda be elsewhere a problem just because of forests in Europe? :lol:
Becouse battle in forests/hills terrain is a close-range battle. Where the slow tank is very vulnerable coz can't maneuver effective.

steben

09-06-2011, 02:04 PM

Becouse battle in forests/hills terrain is a close-range battle. Where the slow tank is very vulnerable coz can't maneuver effective.

I think my point didn't come through... I ment: why can't the matilda be called a problem in African campaign? Forests in Europe are no argument...

steben

09-06-2011, 02:04 PM

P.S. Just don't think dear frieds , i want to hurt the british pride .
Don't worry, you can't hurt a concrete wall with a brick.

83Footer

09-06-2011, 03:59 PM

Most of the prewar designs turned out to inadequate for the actual war. The main ptoblem was the designers had mostly theory and little practice on the real world use of Tanks. Before 1940 there had been very little mass tank vs tank combat. It is difficult to develop new technology for projected future when no one really knows what the future holds.

Nickdfresh

09-06-2011, 05:18 PM

but russian monsters was developed and produced almost within the same period the Matilda was. The t-34 since 1940.Matilda was rather obsolet even for its time.

It can work only in african desert far open terrains. Where slow-moved Matilda has a chance to hit a somebody. In Eropean forest terrains this tank has no any real chances.That's why germans panzers had not noticed or reported the battlles with Matilda - it never was a problem for them.

The main problem for the Matilda, as with most early war British tank designs, was that its hull was too narrow to allow for significant improvements in things like a larger turret for a bigger gun, or for a more powerful engine in the power-train compartments. It's not that the Matilda was a bad tank--it sure scared the hell out of the Germans at Arras in France--but that it could not be sufficiently upgraded due to what I believe to be Briton's predilection to design tanks that were easily shipped around the empire...

83Footer

09-06-2011, 05:28 PM

Just like the Grant was designed for fighting in the Phillipines, but never got there.

leccy

09-06-2011, 07:39 PM

The British had severe limitations in the design department of tanks, money and ability wise between the wars. The Matilda I was developed as a cheap tank (well mobile pillbox) just to get something built. In 1938 most tanks in service were built in the 1920's. An excellent book on the state of British tank design and development is 'Death by Design' although the author is a little biased.

The Matilda II was a good tank in 1940 in France but unfortunately there were only 23 in the BEF. It unfortunately could only just accept the 6 pdr and like most British tanks was incapable of being up-gunned or armoured.
The first decent all round tank developed by the British was the Comet (the last Cruiser) shortly followed by the Centurion (which should have had the 20 pdr when it entered service).

steben

09-07-2011, 02:15 AM

I can't believe there were only "decent" tanks at the end. It's all bias and loss of perspective. It's the same story for Axis as well as the Allies.
There is no reason to dismiss tanks just because they were invented in prewar time, or because of smoothbore guns for example...
The Matilda II was a fine tank. It definitely made a difference against the early German vehicles. No British division ever claimed to give Matilda's away with pleasure ...

Once the T55 arrived, one can easily call all prior Soviet vehicles as rubish, easily.

leccy

09-07-2011, 04:15 AM

The British did have some good tanks in their way prior to the Comet.
The Churchill Infantry Tank after its teething problems was a very good tank and was eventually armed with 6pdr (good AT weapon poor HE) and 75mm MV guns (Good HE poor AT), excellent armour and all terrain ability, very adaptable hull, well liked, very good crew survivability.
Matilda II as already stated.
Cromwell Cruiser Tank, incapable of being updated, very fast (had to be governed down), 6pdr and 75mm MV weapons so same problem as Churchill (also had some with 95mm guns for HE use).

The main problems were they came too late and were classed as obsolete when they entered service. The British never seemed to get the balance right and kept the 2pdr as the main tank gun for far too long (even 2 years after its replacement the 6pdr had been designed and was ready for production). This led to huge delays in the 17pdr as tanks were still being designed for the 6pdr and could not take the 17pdr. (luckily the 75mm MV could fit in many turrets designed for the 6pdr but its AT ability was not as good).

The T34 and Panzer IV were not spectacular tanks but they were solid performers with generally adequate to good, armour to gun to mobility ratio's. From the start they could be upgraded without having to totally re-design them. The Sherman could be put in the same class even though the US never took the option of really upgunning it with the 17pdr.

leccy

09-07-2011, 04:17 AM

I can't believe there were only "decent" tanks at the end. It's all bias and loss of perspective. It's the same story for Axis as well as the Allies.
There is no reason to dismiss tanks just because they were invented in prewar time, or because of smoothbore guns for example...
The Matilda II was a fine tank. It definitely made a difference against the early German vehicles. No British division ever claimed to give Matilda's away with pleasure ...

Once the T55 arrived, one can easily call all prior Soviet vehicles as rubish, easily.

Whats the thoughts on the T44, in the small amount of information I have on that it seems to have been a worthy successor to the T34 and its a pity it never entered full production when it was ready.

steben

09-07-2011, 04:19 AM

The British never seemed to get the balance right and kept the 2pdr as the main tank gun for far too long (even 2 years after its replacement the 6pdr had been designed and was ready for production). This led to huge delays in the 17pdr as tanks were still being designed for the 6pdr and could not take the 17pdr. (luckily the 75mm MV could fit in many turrets designed for the 6pdr but its AT ability was not as good).

Whats the thoughts on the T44, in the small amount of information I have on that it seems to have been a worthy successor to the T34 and its a pity it never entered full production when it was ready.

T-54 proto was finished in 1945 ... production started in 1947 ...

tankgeezer

09-07-2011, 08:17 AM

I can't believe there were only "decent" tanks at the end. It's all bias and loss of perspective. It's the same story for Axis as well as the Allies.
There is no reason to dismiss tanks just because they were invented in prewar time, or because of smoothbore guns for example...
The Matilda II was a fine tank. It definitely made a difference against the early German vehicles. No British division ever claimed to give Matilda's away with pleasure ...

Once the T55 arrived, one can easily call all prior Soviet vehicles as rubish, easily.
The T-54 (later 55) was no bell ringer either, it suffered from many detrimental design flaws.That is not to say that it was unusable, or could not get a job done, but mostly against modern Nato tanks it got the job done to itself.

steben

09-07-2011, 08:52 AM

The T-54 (later 55) was no bell ringer either, it suffered from many detrimental design flaws.That is not to say that it was unusable, or could not get a job done, but mostly against modern Nato tanks it got the job done to itself.

In a way, if you put the posts together, this is the same as saying "russian armour never was really really that good" :mrgreen:

Centurion all the way

Chevan

09-07-2011, 12:05 PM

Once the T55 arrived, one can easily call all prior Soviet vehicles as rubish, easily.
You probably more close to true then you think;)
I actually know that BEFOR the T34 all the prior soviet Vehicles were rubbish. Even it's direct
predecessor BT was piece of crap.Although we had an few interesting designs like the T-38 amphibious scout tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-38_tank). It's not my personal oppinion , but reality of war. Almost all the other types of tanks, developed in pre-war time was stopped becouse of its useless.

Chevan

09-07-2011, 12:29 PM

... The British never seemed to get the balance right and kept the 2pdr as the main tank gun for far too long (even 2 years after its replacement the 6pdr had been designed and was ready for production). This led to huge delays in the 17pdr as tanks were still being designed for the 6pdr and could not take the 17pdr. (luckily the 75mm MV could fit in many turrets designed for the 6pdr but its AT ability was not as good).
.
I still think that the Brits have made the excellent and balanced tank - the modification of Sherman Firefly. Good gun on maneuver chassis - simple and fine decisison. It would be IMO much better for Royal forces to take this tank for armament instead to develop thei own projects.

leccy

09-07-2011, 12:29 PM

I always liked the look of the BT7 and especially the next development the A20 prototype light tank.

Chevan

09-07-2011, 12:37 PM

The T-54 (later 55) was no bell ringer either, it suffered from many detrimental design flaws.That is not to say that it was unusable, or could not get a job done, but mostly against modern Nato tanks it got the job done to itself.

sure mate, it wasn't so good but it was cheap. The cheap mass decent medium tank - all what the soviet needed for the firts post-war period according to its doctrine.

steben

09-08-2011, 02:19 AM

I still think that the Brits have made the excellent and balanced tank - the modification of Sherman Firefly. Good gun on maneuver chassis - simple and fine decisison. It would be IMO much better for Royal forces to take this tank for armament instead to develop thei own projects.

again... in 1945 the Centurion was ready. And no Sherman could beat that :mrgreen:

Chevan

09-08-2011, 11:49 AM

again... in 1945 the Centurion was ready. And no Sherman could beat that :mrgreen:
Yeah, it was ready but the war was OVER :mrgreen:

leccy

09-08-2011, 12:27 PM

Yeah, it was ready but the war was OVER :mrgreen:

Not quite, still had Japan to finish off.

steben

09-08-2011, 12:59 PM

Yeah, it was ready but the war was OVER :mrgreen:

:shock:
hummm... yes
there was no need for a tank that countered T55, you think?

Chevan

09-09-2011, 12:33 AM

:shock:
there was no need for a tank that countered T55, you think?
No need. The T55 was not existed yet, and probably never would have appeared, if Brits has not made their improved Centurion. The arms-race is a bitch, you know;)

Chevan

09-09-2011, 12:37 AM

Not quite, still had Japan to finish off.
Why? the American already was doing the tank that should finish the Japane - Fat Man and Little Boy:) seems yankees again leave brits behind:)

tankgeezer

09-09-2011, 01:39 AM

again... in 1945 the Centurion was ready. And no Sherman could beat that :mrgreen:

It wouldn't have to.Aside from Britain, and America being allies, the U.S. had introduced the M-26 before the Cent came along.

tankgeezer

09-09-2011, 02:04 AM

sure mate, it wasn't so good but it was cheap. The cheap mass decent medium tank - all what the soviet needed for the firts post-war period according to its doctrine.

I wouldn't say it was a bad tank, it had a good mix of the main elements a tank needs, but it lacked some things that are important. It had no turret floor, the loader had to walk around with it as it traversed, ammo storage was not located to facilitate quick loading of the main gun. It had no fire control to speak of, no range finder, or ballistic computer which were present in U.S. tanks begining with the M-47. It had instead, a choke sight coaxial to the gun. This is okay if you are going into a massed assault at closer ranges, but not much help against a defender who has a range finder, and can engage from a distance well beyond the choke sight's capability.
For close engagements the U.S. (I can't speak for all of NATO) idea was called "Battle Sight" A heat round was loaded,and indexed, the range set to 1,100 m this would provide the correct solution most of the time from 900m to 1,400m. But I would not have wanted my little 3 tank battle group to run across a company of 55's at a mile range.

steben

09-09-2011, 03:33 AM

It wouldn't have to.Aside from Britain, and America being allies, the U.S. had introduced the M-26 before the Cent came along.

You can't expect allies to just accept everything, especially the Brits in that time.
Even the US used the Centurion, not directly on its own, but to spice up the armored forces of Allies.

steben

09-09-2011, 03:35 AM

No need. The T55 was not existed yet, and probably never would have appeared, if Brits has not made their improved Centurion. The arms-race is a bitch, you know;)

it is a fact
Not producing the centurion wouldn't change a bit

tankgeezer

09-09-2011, 07:28 AM

You can't expect allies to just accept everything, especially the Brits in that time.
Even the US used the Centurion, not directly on its own, but to spice up the armored forces of Allies.

I don't know what you're getting at there, the British were part of the Allies, and at what time? you need to clarify your statement.

steben

09-09-2011, 07:40 AM

I don't know what you're getting at there, the British were part of the Allies, and at what time? you need to clarify your statement.

That it is perfectly normal for the British to have developped their own tanks and that it was a succes where even the US took advantage of.
The time the stop - gap Firefly arrived, the war had ended almost as much as when the centurion arrived.
The centurion in fact was the first and last export/servicelength/distributed design succes of its kind and a true post-war icon.

tankgeezer

09-09-2011, 09:59 AM

That it is perfectly normal for the British to have developped their own tanks and that it was a succes where even the US took advantage of.
The time the stop - gap Firefly arrived, the war had ended almost as much as when the centurion arrived.
The centurion in fact was the first and last export/servicelength/distributed design succes of its kind and a true post-war icon.
The Firefly was in use in 1943, long before the European War's end. It proved very useful in the D-Day operations against German armor. Translation errors aside, your statements are a bit muddy, and difficult to understand.

Nickdfresh

09-09-2011, 03:21 PM

Why? the American already was doing the tank that should finish the Japane - Fat Man and Little Boy:) seems yankees again leave brits behind:)

Maybe. But the U.S. Army was repositioning numbers of M-26 Pershings to the Far East in anticipation of Operation Downfall--the main reason being that its armor was almost impenetrable to most Japanese anti-tank weapons such as the 47mm gun. The 47mm was used successfully in ambush positions to fire into the rear and sides of Sherman tanks on Pacific islands during that campaign, usually as a suicide mission for the Japanese gun crews who would wait concealed waiting for armor to pass them by, then fire before being slaughtered by follow on infantry...

steben

09-10-2011, 12:14 PM

The Firefly was in use in 1943, long before the European War's end. It proved very useful in the D-Day operations against German armor.

there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss the Centurion as redundant, if one looks at its history. The firefly would've been outstanding for decades .... if no one else was designing next generation tanks.

Translation errors aside, your statements are a bit muddy, and difficult to understand.

be gentle now :lol:

tankgeezer

09-10-2011, 05:25 PM

You can't expect allies to just accept everything, especially the Brits in that time.
Even the US used the Centurion, not directly on its own, but to spice up the armored forces of Allies.

I have no idea what you mean by this statement, define "you cant expect allies to just accept everything" What exactly are they supposed to have accepted, and why?

When did the U.S. actually use Centurion tanks? and just how would the U.S, have the ability to "spice up" the others of the Allied armor forces?

tankgeezer

09-10-2011, 05:35 PM

[QUOTE=steben;180155]there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss the Centurion as redundant, if one looks at its history. The firefly would've been outstanding for decades .... if no one else was designing next generation tanks.

We were speaking about the British modified Sherman called the Firefly. How could its existence Make the later Centurion redundant? My statement was a responce to your stating that the firefly came along at the end of the European war, when it clearly had been in the field for some time prior to the German surrender.

steben

09-11-2011, 07:32 AM

I have no idea what you mean by this statement, define "you cant expect allies to just accept everything" What exactly are they supposed to have accepted, and why?

There was an earlier statement about the British, that should have fully mass produced the firefly ("accepting foreign designl") instead of putting resources in own development. I state that this would've been a bad idea.

When did the U.S. actually use Centurion tanks? and just how would the U.S, have the ability to "spice up" the others of the Allied armor forces?

The nucleus of re-armament of Western Europe was financed by the US, and they used the Centurion for the minor countries and supplied their own tanks for major ones. The US never used it themselves. The centurion proved more useful once further round of gun and armour race was needed.

We were speaking about the British modified Sherman called the Firefly. How could its existence Make the later Centurion redundant?

was exactly my point, my friend :lol:

My statement was a responce to your stating that the firefly came along at the end of the European war, when it clearly had been in the field for some time prior to the German surrender.

true

Nickdfresh

09-11-2011, 11:25 AM

There was an earlier statement about the British, that should have fully mass produced the firefly ("accepting foreign designl") instead of putting resources in own development. I state that this would've been a bad idea.
...

There weren't enough 17-Pdr. guns to go around as they also armed Achilles tank destroyers and were used as field guns and this-that-or-the-other thing, IIRC. The British did make a concerted effort to convince the Americans to use their industrial capacity to make the 17-Pdr. in order to arm more-and-more vehicles with the guns. But between the Tank Destroyer Doctrine and the U.S.A.'s Ordnance Dept. working on adapting the 90mm M3 to anti-tank use, it was rejected--but not totally--as after the losses in Normandy, the Army desperately ordered a few hundred Sherman Firefly's for service in American arms. However, 90mm Jackson M36's were coming online as was the Pershing tank, which finally received the support it needed for fielding over the objections of the seemingly deluded Army Ground Forces Command. The few dozen American Fireflys earmarked to go to the continent were then given to the British IIRC...

The nucleus of re-armament of Western Europe was financed by the US, and they used the Centurion for the minor countries and supplied their own tanks for major ones. The US never used it themselves. The centurion proved more useful once further round of gun and armour race was needed.

was exactly my point, my friend :lol:

The British did finance a significant amount of their own defense and also contributed to exporting the Centurion to defense partners in the Commonwealth. The closest use "by American proxies" was in the Middle East by Israel where they significantly contributed to the Israeli defense and also by Aussie forces in Vietnam...

steben

09-11-2011, 03:03 PM

To point things directly into noses ...
Belgium got M47's, Netherlands got Centurions....
Centurions were longer in service ...

leccy

09-11-2011, 05:08 PM

To point things directly into noses ...
Belgium got M47's, Netherlands got Centurions....
Centurions were longer in service ...

That was the countrys choices as they had to pay for them. The US provided M47 and M48 at subsidised prices to those countrys that could not afford to buy or develop their own MBT's. It was similar to the F5 and F16 programs.

Some took a mix of equipment while others went for all from one supplier for all their needs. Doctrine also played a part with the eternal Gun/Armour/Speed debate.

Nickdfresh

09-12-2011, 04:16 PM

The M-47 Patton might not have lasted as long as the Centurion. But it had been designed as a "stop-gap" tank before the far more refined, diesel powered M-48 series came out--whereas the Centurion has some versatility built into a thickly armored hull making it a tank easily improved as evidenced by the adaption of the L7 105mm gun.

steben

09-18-2011, 01:26 PM

whereas the Centurion has some versatility built into a thickly armored hull making it a tank easily improved as evidenced by the adaption of the L7 105mm gun.

making it exactly for such reasons perhaps a more succesful / efficient design? 50 cents

tankgeezer

09-18-2011, 01:38 PM

making it exactly for such reasons perhaps a more succesful / efficient design? 50 cents
As compared to what?

Nickdfresh

09-18-2011, 04:07 PM

making it exactly for such reasons perhaps a more succesful / efficient design? 50 cents

What Tankgeezer said. I love the Centurion, but it had its drawbacks--being very difficult to service and even do a basic oil change on is one. And and extremely thirsty petrol engine and short range (initially) was the other...

steben

09-19-2011, 03:29 AM

As compared to what?

all other western designs concieved in 1944/45. They all were becoming obsolete where the centurion showed it's advantages
(and perhaps the T54. yet the T54/55 was enormous export succes as well.
And I guess Khadafi's downfall is still powered with them?)

steben

09-19-2011, 03:31 AM

but it had its drawbacks

I never had a "drawbackless tank" in mind :)

And and extremely thirsty petrol engine and short range (initially) was the other...

I think the Dutch (and perhaps Israeli's?) indeed swapped the first generation with turbodiesels.
Again, it was possible

tankgeezer

09-19-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote by Steben: "all other western designs concieved in 1944/45. "

The M-26 was hardly inferior to the Cent, or any other tank by the war's end,or within reasonable time after. The reason that many tanks were withdrawn from service is that in the case of the U.S., and the Soviet Union, they continued to develop models superior to those already in the field. This is due to the cold war, and the one upsmanship of measure/countermeasure that drove the arms race between them.(plus, they could afford to do it) Because the Cent hung around in front line use a while longer is not in itself proof that it was too good to let go. It was no less vulnerable to the munitions of the time, it had contemporary armor nothing more. Maintenance difficulties, and its cranky drive train didnt help it. In the end it was its price tag that kept it popular.

steben

09-19-2011, 10:24 AM

Then there are always only "worse tanks", and never "better tanks". In any era.

leccy

09-19-2011, 12:05 PM

Quote by Steben: "all other western designs concieved in 1944/45. "

The M-26 was hardly inferior to the Cent, or any other tank by the war's end,or within reasonable time after. The reason that many tanks were withdrawn from service is that in the case of the U.S., and the Soviet Union, they continued to develop models superior to those already in the field. This is due to the cold war, and the one upsmanship of measure/countermeasure that drove the arms race between them.(plus, they could afford to do it) Because the Cent hung around in front line use a while longer is not in itself proof that it was too good to let go. It was no less vulnerable to the munitions of the time, it had contemporary armor nothing more. Maintenance difficulties, and its cranky drive train didnt help it. In the end it was its price tag that kept it popular.

The M26 was withdrawn and rebuilt as the M46 soon after the war due to its poor transmission causing problems and underpowered engine.

The Cent remained popular due to the ease that just about every other country could improve it (damn that we kept the Meteor engine). After market mods improved its lifespan and abilitys greatly. The last British ones (105 and 165 AVRE's) had chains on the turret bustle and ERA during the first Gulf War. They were retired soon afterwards though around 1992/3 after 3 were lost in spectacular explosions in 2 days Feb 1991.

funny to see T34 kill marks on M46's in Korea, only 5 years after the last nazi tank did the same ...

Chevan

09-20-2011, 06:40 AM

The IS-3 looks great. I love the shape of its turret.

steben

09-20-2011, 06:46 AM

The IS-3 looks great. I love the shape of its turret.

morph between post-war T55/alike and T34 :mrgreen:

spyder

01-12-2012, 10:12 AM

I believe that PzIII/IV would be preferable in that conditions. Still, the Panther was more expensive at about one and a half times that PzIV. But PzIII/IV probably would have been even cheaper. 7.5cm L/48 gun could deal with all the targets on the Western Front and nearly all (except for tanks and assault guns in a IS series) on the Eastern Front. Recoil of the 7.5cm L/70 gun would be long for this tank, but if we remember Hetzer Starr and Sherman Firefly, this problem has a solution.

P.S. I have always discouraged that the transmission of German tanks in front of hull... Not the best solution. This leads to an increase of the height of the entire tank.
I'll have to check, is there room for the rear transmission on III/IV :)

Karabekian

01-18-2012, 07:17 AM

I find it absolutely clear that the Panther was needed and was far superior to the IV. The simple issue is, that with more PZ IV the fuel/ammunition/transportation consumption would have risen beyond German capability, not to mention the need in trained crews (That did not exist after 1943).
The logical step was thus to keep producing the Panther (and simlifying it), while giving some resources to the Tiger VIB (and possibly remove the Tiger I earlier).

The other option was to build panzerjägers/sturmgeschutze, but then this also means a drop in performance for any individual tank (less manouverability/survivability).

- be less prone to unexperienced drivers (that weren't used to the barrel length and mass of Panthers and King Tigers)
- would easily get maintenance by it's own crew
- require less support,
- transported in larger numbers
- consume less fuel
- be far less missed if knocked out
- be a better vehicle for reconnaissance mission

1. Historically the Germans seem to have coped with this problem very soon.
2. The Germans had more Tiger I, VIB and Panther running in 1945, than most other tanks!
3/4. The Tiger VIB, for example was designed to fight alone, and fared well. According to Carius they moved the VIB on trains with combat tracks, so why would the Panther be different!
5. Panther had a consumption of some 20% more than a Pz IV, with much better mobility and speed (and armour and firepower). To pull the Tiger VIB in again, it had less fuel consumption than a Jagdpanther! Heavier was the way to go for the Germans for reasons above.
6. True, if it was knocked out. Much more likely for a Pz IV crew to die at the same time..
7. Irrelevant by this time, the Germans sure knew where the enemy was going.

EDIT: Can someone explain what is the relevance of cost in RM during the war? Its not like they bought their tanks, or the materials for them..

spyder

01-18-2012, 07:35 AM

Can someone explain what is the relevance of cost in RM during the war? Its not like they bought their tanks, or the materials for them..
Money - the equivalent of the materials, labor, and all country's GDP.

steben

01-18-2012, 07:54 AM

I find it absolutely clear that the Panther was needed and was far superior to the IV. The simple issue is, that with more PZ IV the fuel/ammunition/transportation consumption would have risen beyond German capability, not to mention the need in trained crews (That did not exist after 1943).
The logical step was thus to keep producing the Panther (and simlifying it), while giving some resources to the Tiger VIB (and possibly remove the Tiger I earlier).

It was far superior to the IV only in defence and long range (making it a better replacement for the Eastern Front than Westen Front) and on paper (assuming it ... - uhm - ... kept running)

The other option was to build panzerjägers/sturmgeschutze, but then this also means a drop in performance for any individual tank (less manouverability/survivability).

The StuG were a great weapon. Yet, they seemed less cheap than I thought at first.

1. Historically the Germans seem to have coped with this problem very soon.
2. The Germans had more Tiger I, VIB and Panther running in 1945, than most other tanks!
3/4. The Tiger VIB, for example was designed to fight alone, and fared well. According to Carius they moved the VIB on trains with combat tracks, so why would the Panther be different!
5. Panther had a consumption of some 20% more than a Pz IV, with much better mobility and speed (and armour and firepower). To pull the Tiger VIB in again, it had less fuel consumption than a Jagdpanther! Heavier was the way to go for the Germans for reasons above.
6. True, if it was knocked out. Much more likely for a Pz IV crew to die at the same time..
7. Irrelevant by this time, the Germans sure knew where the enemy was going.

1. Germans were in defence, the weakness of the Panther and Tiger II was in mobile attack.
2. in 1945 the war was over. The discussion III/IV vs Panther must be placed in '41 to '43.
3/4. Support means maintenance effort, of course they would fight alone, as would the III/IV.
5. I'm not suggesting they should have used only the old IV, but to develop a new III/IV, with the same production methods and technical design as in the later tanks (simple plates welded, not bolted with support beams).
6. that's beyond this discussion
7. ok

Karabekian

01-18-2012, 08:44 AM

Hmm damn how stupid of me, I was going trough the pages not even realizing before now that you said "the III/IV", not the Pz III and Pz IV as opposed to the Panther.. :shock:

I understand now, sorry. Better find a "late war discussion". :oops:

Panzerknacker

01-20-2012, 03:18 PM

The Panzer III/IV would be cheaper than the Panther, althought probably not better.

Nickdfresh

01-20-2012, 07:45 PM

I think I've read the Panther wasn't really much more expensive to produce than the late-war vintage Mk IV...

What the chart(s) show is the real reason why the Stugs and other tank destroyers were increasingly favored by a losing army fighting on the defensive...

leccy

01-21-2012, 10:25 AM

Price comparison is a little difficult to compare alot of the time as people pick the price that reflects what they are trying to promote. Over the life of a vehicle the unit price generally reduces (I can not remember the figures at the moment but the T34 in 1940 cost almost twice what it did in 1945).

Depending on the specification (ie model) the cost in money, material and manhours can be very different. Ease of manufacturing, use of strategic materials, man hours per vehicle are all needed to make a real comparison, pure unit cost does not tell the whole story.

Found this example of unit costs

The cost to produce a T-34-85 tank was initially about thirty percent higher than a Model 1943, at 164,000 rubles; but by 1945 it was down to 142,000 (Harrison 2002:181). During the course of the war, the cost of a T-34 tank had been reduced by almost half, from 270,000 rubles in 1941 (Harrison 2002:181), while in the meantime its top speed remained about the same, and its main gun's armour penetration and turret frontal armour thickness both nearly doubled

Nickdfresh

01-21-2012, 10:30 AM

I also recall the T-34's vast production reduced its unit cost to quite a bargain. I think all this cost-per-tank thing has been explored here before, with the conscientious being that RM for RM, the Panther was the best overall value as an AFV in relation to its capabilities, and Stugs destroyed far more Allied tanks than any other types of AFVs...

spyder

01-21-2012, 10:39 AM

I just leave it here...
5817
5818

I think it is possible construction. Enhance wheels (like Jagdpanzer IV), move engine back a little, straight front armor plate will be lighter than "staged" with two pieces . The result is a reserve capacity for the new turret and gun.

Panzerknacker

01-21-2012, 05:29 PM

I think I've read the Panther wasn't really much more expensive to produce than the late-war vintage Mk IV...
That information is wrong, the torsion bars suspension with interleaved wheels alone in Panther V was 300 % more expensive than the simple leaf springs bogies in the Pz IV.

Panther had 80mm front armor, Jagdpanzer IV/70 had 80mm.

Jagdpanzer IV is not a tank, when you dispose the turret you can have more armor, aniway is not about the armor alone, the gun in the Panther was far better than the one used for III/IV projekts, including the sloped armor w166 drawing, the KwK 40 fired a 6.5 kilograms projectile at 745 meters per second, now the kwK 42 of the Panther fired 7.2 kilograms projectile at 935 meters per second. The Kwk 40 was useful in the Africa, mediterranean and Western Front, but after 1943 with the introduction of a new generation of soviet it was unsuficient for the battle in the East.

Probably a good strategy would be to use the III/IV in the west and the Panther in the East, I guess is too simple for many german minds of ww2.

I think it is possible construction. Enhance wheels (like Jagdpanzer IV), move engine back a little, straight front armor plate will be lighter than "staged" with two pieces . The result is a reserve capacity for the new turret and gun.

The model there is nice, but there is a mistake, the turret in that image is the one called "schmallturm" ( by the way schmal means narrow not small) designed for the Panther ausf F wich is painfully overweight for the leaf springs in that chassis.

spyder

01-21-2012, 11:27 PM

The model there is nice, but there is a mistake, the turret in that image is the one called "schmallturm" ( by the way schmal means narrow not small) designed for the Panther ausf F wich is painfully overweight for the leaf springs in that chassis.
I know that "schmallturm" is "narrowturret". But the weight of "schmallturm" 5 ton more than weight of the standard PzIV turret.
If designers had made ​​some steps to reduce weight and increase the suspension (I reminded again the Jagdpanzer :) ), the chassis would have been able to carry it.
Jagdpanzer IV have been able to carry heavy frontal armor and gun from Panther.
Another thing is that the Germans did not have time for serious changes in the structures of their tanks... If the Panzer 4 dramatically outdated in 1942 (not 1944), we would probably see such improved Panzer 4.

Btw, can anyone comment on this rumor: in 1944 one of the factories received technical documentation for start production of Panzer 3/4, but the production did not start (other sources tells that produced half a dozen, but no photo, maybe destroyed during the bombing).

leccy

01-22-2012, 03:06 AM

I know that "schmallturm" is "narrowturret". But the weight of "schmallturm" 5 ton more than weight of the standard PzIV turret.
If designers had made ​​some steps to reduce weight and increase the suspension (I reminded again the Jagdpanzer :) ), the chassis would have been able to carry it.
Jagdpanzer IV have been able to carry heavy frontal armor and gun from Panther.
Another thing is that the Germans did not have time for serious changes in the structures of their tanks... If the Panzer 4 dramatically outdated in 1942 (not 1944), we would probably see such improved Panzer 4.

Btw, can anyone comment on this rumor: in 1944 one of the factories received technical documentation for start production of Panzer 3/4, but the production did not start (other sources tells that produced half a dozen, but no photo, maybe destroyed during the bombing).

The Jagdpanzer IV could not really carry the weight of the frontal armour and gun from the Panther, despite many attempts to upgrade the suspension especially at the front of the vehicle it was still too nose heavy. The front suspension was always suffering from failure and it was very awkward to drive. It had long reached the maximum weight you could bolt onto the Panzer IV chassis, to add the extra weight at the front it had to be removed from elsewhere and ended up with a vehicle that was not balanced along its axis.

bradleyl30

02-02-2012, 01:07 PM

I see a lot of these threads about "is the Panther/Tiger/T34" the best, or in this case should the Germans have focused on the Panzer IV or the Panther. I find them interesting and think about it myself, but one part of the question always seems missing. This missing element is the context in which the tank/panzer will be used.

It seems to me that Germany fought two different types of warfare on two different fronts. Much of the fighting on the Eastern front was over great distances of largely natural terrain that was exacerbated by heavy rains and snows. This was the battlefield in which the Panther was designed to fight with its long range gun, heavy frontal armor, wide tracks and advanced suspension system.

The Western Front was much different where smaller, more nimble tanks excelled. Here the modernized Panzer IV seems to be the clear winner, as there are numerous examples of the failure of the Panther and other large tanks on the Western Front.

It seems to me the real question is: Which of the varied tanks/panzers should the Germans have focused its scarce resources to fight? My answer is the Panther/JagdPanther combination on the Eastern front and the PanzerIV/StugIII/IVs on the Western Front. Forget about the Tigers, JagdTigers, etc.

This is the Wehrmacht I would have built, if anyone had asked!

spyder

02-02-2012, 01:21 PM

bradleyl30, I think that for the Eastern Front Pz IV fit better in terms of reliability. Panthers had problems with wheels in the chassis - there are very good dirt jammed. And if dirt freezing at night... Engineer Kniepkamp doomed german repairmen :)

bradleyl30

02-02-2012, 01:40 PM

Admittedly, it was not perfect, but the Panzer IV had more trouble navigating the snow and mud when it was trying to cross it. Both had reliability problems as the war situation deteriorated and production standards plummeted, important alloys to make good steel became scarce and "non-essential" components were eliminated (such as making late model Panzer IVs with only hand-cranked turret controls.)

steben

08-20-2013, 11:25 AM

That information is wrong, the torsion bars suspension with interleaved wheels alone in Panther V was 300 % more expensive than the simple leaf springs bogies in the Pz IV.

perhaps, but the construction style of the hull and connecting all parts of the IV was still overengineered, were the Panther had a simple plate - welding "monocoque" concept.

Jagdpanzer IV is not a tank, when you dispose the turret you can have more armor, aniway is not about the armor alone, the gun in the Panther was far better than the one used for III/IV projekts, including the sloped armor w166 drawing, the KwK 40 fired a 6.5 kilograms projectile at 745 meters per second, now the kwK 42 of the Panther fired 7.2 kilograms projectile at 935 meters per second. The Kwk 40 was useful in the Africa, mediterranean and Western Front, but after 1943 with the introduction of a new generation of soviet it was unsuficient for the battle in the East.
Probably a good strategy would be to use the III/IV in the west and the Panther in the East, I guess is too simple for many german minds of ww2.

You must admit that using two new slow-in-start-up production lines while in the constant need of new tanks was a step further than the road they walked already.
I think they should have made the Panther less heavy. Something in-between (III/IV and Panther). Or even get rid of the sloped side sponsons in the III/IV if it helped widening the turret ring (making heavie rguns possible)... etc etc..... making a smaller Tiger with only the front sloped. A sloped armour that is still to thin is useless no?